The reason those cabals shoul7d accept neutrals is because they aren't built around murder for hire. Syndicate has no other purpose than killing for money. That's my whole argument anyway. If a neutral war acted like a wm but wasn't in wm or battle, they would not be outcast. Same goes for the other cabals. If a neutral acted like a syndi but wasn't one or trying to be one, they would get outcast. It is listed somewhere that killing for eq/gold is not a good reason for a neutral to kill. That rule goes away if you're a syndi
Locked Syndicate for evils only.
Quote
- If Syndicate becomes evil only no good aligned character could ever post a bounty. It would be associating with evil.
Maybe goods shouldn't be able to post bounties.
Quote
- Syndicate's purpose is to Eliminate threats a player can not eliminate themselves. Whether because of time zone restrictions, or abilis. See number 1.
That's OOC.
Quote
Edited
19 minutes ago, 'tarako said:
The reason those cabals shoul7d accept neutrals is because they aren't built around murder for hire. Syndicate has no other purpose than killing for money. That's my whole argument anyway. If a neutral war acted like a wm but wasn't in wm or battle, they would not be outcast. Same goes for the other cabals. If a neutral acted like a syndi but wasn't one or trying to be one, they would get outcast. It is listed somewhere that killing for eq/gold is not a good reason for a neutral to kill. That rule goes away if you're a syndi
Honestly I am not sure that's true, play a neutral and attack every warmaster or savant you see. Or watcher or tribunal and let me know how that goes, I can't say for sure but that sounds like a good way to get outcasted to evil.
My argument is that a neutral basically gets to pick what they want to do with their character. For that privilege they get more restrictions put on them until they declare themselves. Simple as that.
Its not ooc if I can not kill Ragnomar and believe Lisko or Kortag stands a better chance. Thats the purpose of syndicate.
Sometimes we have to deal with fights where we do not have the upper hand. But every time I see this argument its because the neutral syndicate member is not affected by the complaining players current character skills.
Every single time.
I will wager it's true this time as well.
Every single time the same complaint. They are killing for gold. Nope Merchants get more gold. They are killing for the rush of PK. They are killing because that is the job they signed up for.
Neutral barbarian kills for trophies. Why not say barb has to be evil.
Why not make watchers who raid val miran evil?
Because it limits and we enjoy less boundries.
32 minutes ago, Lloraaru said:
Maybe goods shouldn't be able to post bounties.
That's OOC.
Yeah, because he repented. If he didn't, he'd have been perma-outcast/made evil.
He was outcast, made evil, kicked out of Knight, and his deity switched to Anume because he killed a good for what he thought was a good reason.
...but a neutral Syndicate can work for the Nexus, run around with them, and kill goods for financial gain and it isn't evil? Pfft.
Pretty sure if a neutral Syndicate ran around with Nexus and became their "attack dog" they'd open themselves up for Knight to attack them.
If however you mean syndicate letting nexus "buyout" a bounty, well that sounds like someone should really try to have knight make friends with Syndicate. They are killers for hire, they've got a price to swap sides, find it.
Every single time the same complaint. They are killing for gold. Nope Merchants get more gold.
It's not about killing for money.
Syndicate doesn't kill for gold?
OH-kay.
They are killing because that is the job they signed up for.
If I kill someone for money but it's in my job description, then it's not evil. Got it.
Let's hop in Bill & Ted's telephone booth and go back to the Nuremburg Trials so you can say that "just following orders" is a viable defense.
Neutral barbarian kills for trophies.
I've had more than a handful of barbarians over the years, many of whom were evil, and I've never once killed for a trophy; I've taken trophies from my killings which would've occurred whether I had the ability to take trophies or not.
I would argue that a neutral barbarian who kills for trophies is evil.
It needs to be kept within the reality of FL for context. FL never had Nazis. FL has nothing to do with Nazis. Ethos and alignment are not the same as our reality.
The fact that FL hasn't had double-cheeseburgers doesn't detract from the salient point that was made at all.
Murder for hire is so blatantly evil that it takes a fair amount of logically fallacious mental gymnastics to even move it from 'evil' to 'very questionable'.
Again, it would have to fall under murder and it could be filed elsewhere. It's not black and white all the time. The point hasn't been made concretely for me yet, especially since this is more a case by case basis and less these broad terms that keep being brought to the table.
I always thought neutral syndicates should be like a q-position.
Still available but require a bit of character development to get. Makes it less abusable.
5 minutes ago, Wade said:
I always thought neutral syndicates should be like a q-position.
Still available but require a bit of character development to get. Makes it less abusable.
I honestly thought this, but since you brought it up too... what if Neutral Syndicates were treated like Qclasses. You can do it, but you are scrutinized much more and are required to maintain a higher level of class and RP in most cases.
What about making the alliance matter?
Allied with nexus, evil only allowed.
Allied with warmaster, only melee etc.
I personally dislike the idea of restricting neutrals RP even more, and that's what your suggestion does. Why does it matter if my neutral invoker in syndicate wants to ally myself with warmaster if they are willing to do so?
Privates at age 18 in Vietnam were told to kill women and children. They had to because these women and children were transporting explosive materials that would kill their comrades.
They were paid via GI Bill in most cases.
Were they evil? No. They were doing the job.
One step further. Private is promoted becomes a sniper. One job. Kill the enemy. Eliminate the threat.
Evil is all about perceptions. I think when someone posts for a change because they are not winning, its evil. When someone demands that something gets gimped because they can not deal with it. Evil.
That said. Kudos to Wade for always asking what is the counter play. As opposed to beginning with harm another because I want to be #1. Evil incarnate.
We have Church cabal apparently in the works, kill everyone who is not a follower of the One. Now thats Evil.
Glad you learned about those trials, but I personally did not need a verdict to tell me what was right or wrong.
Again. I am on the fence here, but I do not want to pigeon hole people into certain RPs.
A better suggestion would be that a neutral Syndicate can not collect two of the same alignment bounties in a row. JMO
Just a preemptive warning to everyone to keep this debate lively but respectful, which it has been so far.
Posts that are needlessly sarcastic or demeaning do not assist the discussion.
I am all for more cabals being based around religion, so if that's really a thing that sounds amazing.
21 minutes ago, Fool_Hardy said:
We have Church cabal apparently in the works, kill everyone who is not a follower of the One. Now thats Evil.
This however I feel like is really looking at this a bit one sided. Wars have been fought for all of recorded history because of religion and while I agree it's pretty messed up, in FL terms I am going to so so sad if only evils and not goods can be in this cabal.
I see no reason a good cannot put a bounty on an evil char. I see a debatable argument when the gold goes to an evil because you are aiding evil, but can also see the argument of having evil fighting evil to weaken themselves.
Soldiers tend to join the army because of patriotism, because they believe in a cause. And the army is nothing like an assassins guild, which is exactly what the syndicate is.
Also, saying that if syndicate was evil only we wouldn't have neutral merchants isis like saying that merchants shouldn't accept goods. Unrelated.
I think the best idea i seen for syndicate is from this thread. Making neutrals in syndicate a quest application. Not a standart application, in order to show how your char is killing for gold while still not being evil. Perhaps even turning him evil in an neutral only race.
I think who ever raised the paladin question, touched an interesting aspect of the game. Syndicate being an cabal dedicated to murdering for gold should be anathema for certain good classes/RPs, and murdered on sight.
I also think that syndicate menbers should be anathema to most lawful characters and murdered on sight outside the cities.
So are we just gonna pretend that taking someone's life for money is not inherently evil.
13 minutes ago, 'tarako said:
So are we just gonna pretend that taking someone's life for money is not inherently evil.
I feel like most sane people in the world would agree with you here. That being said I do not find this to be a valid argument against neutrals in syndicate. Why exactly cant a neutral kill people for money? They dont have a goods moral code, and can do evil things or good things.
I think you're equating neutrality with sociopathy. Neutral doesn't mean meh. Believing murder for hire is just how you get paid is not a neutral view. Being pro choice is neutral. Accepting a bag of money to kill someone with no other reason besides that money is evil.